On controversial issues, when is it important to strive towards neutrality? When is it important to express moral clarity?
These were questions presented at a UCLA faculty workshop on navigating difficult conversations. We were led by Noah Heller and Eric Soto-Shed from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
To me, these questions are not mutually exclusive. I believe that we should always express moral clarity - and when appropriate seek neutrality.
Life is not black and white. All groups, movements, and organizations are led by fallible people. At times, they make unwise decisions. They use regrettable rhetoric. They take selfish actions and harm others.
So it's wrong to neglect morality in the name of being impartial. We can oppose a group's ideology yet acknowledge their good points. We can support a cause yet condemn their inappropriate behavior. We can stand for what is right without playing favorites. We can - and should - be clear about our morals.
At the same time, no one should be forced to "pick sides." No one should be compelled to publicly state their views or declare their loyalty - either to a group or a person. Mob mentality only stokes the fire.
In March, Axios reported that 68% of U.S. college students argued for expanding the limits of speech on campus "even if there's some risk of violence." In contrast, only 43% of non-student adults agreed with the statement. Consider the turmoil and chaos today. Words matter. As it's said, "the tongue is a fire."
Another workshop participant said that neutrality should be a right. You shouldn't have to "strive" for it. If you don't want to take a public stance - for whatever reason - you should be able to without question. That doesn't mean you don't have a view. It simply means that the public isn't entitled to your thoughts.
You can stay neutral as a matter of discretion. You can express moral clarity without partiality. You can build bridges instead of burning them. You can be a healing presence in the most divisive of times.